Congressman Pete Sessions
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Congressman Kweisi Mfume
2263 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
RE: Hearing March 11, 2025 U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Operations
Shifting Gears: Moving from Recovery to Prevention of Improper Payments and Fraud
Dear Congressmen:
The Blueprint 2025 (“BP2025”) Initiative is a collaboration among infrastructure professionals,
leading infrastructure development companies and public sector project managers which
advances and supports plans and policies to restore the U.S.’ position as the country with the
world’s best, most efficient and most productive infrastructure. For more than a decade, we have
aggressively argued for extensive use of digital technologies, automation and Artificial
Intelligence to expedite and improve the NEPA environmental review process and governmental
processes in general. We were highly encouraged by the constructive dialog between the two of
you which took place at the March 11, 2025, Subcommittee hearings on DOGE related issues.
The Executive Orders by which President Trump established the DOGE and clarified its mandate
appear to be well considered, functional charters which clearly define DOGE’S objectives, the
authorities and responsibilities of cabinet agencies, DOGE’s role as technology consultant and
software designer for the Cabinet Agencies and the way in which it will be integrated into the
basic functions of Government. To be specific:
Objectives: The January 20th order (E.O. 14158) clearly states that DOGE’s purpose is to
implement the President’s DOGE Agenda “by modernizing Federal technology and software to
maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.” It does not give the DOGE any authority
to directly carry out any management role with respect to any agency or, indeed, to take any
action unrelated to the modernization of government software and technology. The February
11th order (E.O.14219) expands this purpose by giving DOGE a consultative role regarding the
actions by Agency Heads to cut costs through the installation of systems to reduce or reallocate
spending to promote efficiency and advance Administration policies. We need to be clear as to
the scope of DOGE’s authority and avoid misunderstandings about what it is doing.
Authorities and Responsibilities of Agency Heads: Both orders make clear that Agency
Heads have primary responsibility for implementation. Each Agency Head must establish a
“DOGE Team” of at least four employees, which may, or may not, include DOGE Special
Employees. DOGE has a consultative role regarding team selection. Team Leads are to
coordinate with DOGE and advise their Agency Heads regarding implementation of the
President’s DOGE Agenda. Agency Heads are clearly in charge. The DOGE role is consultative
and advisory – and presumably grounded in the DOGE prime function of modernizing software
and technology. Agency Heads are free to accept or reject DOGE advice.
DOGE’s Role and Integration – The January 20th order positions DOGE as a technology
advisor and software designer to be integrated into the agencies in order to help them implement
a “Software Modernization Initiative to improve the quality and efficiency of government -wide
software, network infrastructure, and information technology (IT) systems.” Presumably,
directed toward the objective of maximizing governmental efficiency and productivity. The
February 11th order (as built upon by an OMB Guidance Letter to Agency Heads dated February
26th) adds an additional consultative role for the DOGE Teams. Assistance in the development
of data driven plans to reduce the size of the federal workforce and identify and prevent wasteful
expenditures.
To summarize, the two executive orders address and resolve a number of contentious issues
which are impeding progress towards the DOGE objectives.
• DOGE is to operate at the direction of Agency Heads as a technology advisor and
software designer. It has no independent authority to downsize agencies, fire workers or
make management decisions for the agencies it serves. So long as it acts within the scope
of its Presidential assignment, these sorts of actions should not occur except at the
Agency Heads’ direction.
• There seems to be a relatively broad consensus that Government is too large and not
sufficiently efficient but perhaps an equally broad consensus that adjustments need to be
“surgical”. Adherence to the EO’s premise that DOGE should focus on modernization of
Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity
would enhance public confidence, and possibly judicial acceptance of the proposition that
the DOGE effort is indeed “surgical”, data driven and appropriately directed and thus an
appropriate exercise of executive authority.
• The January 20th Executive Order expects that DOGE’s activities will, from the outset, be
focused on modernization of Federal technology and software to maximize governmental
efficiency and productivity.
Unfortunately, the publicly available information suggests that, in actual practice, the Orders’
mandates are not being adhered to. For example:
• DOGE has departed from the Order’s “software and technology from the outset” mandate
and, instead, implemented an aggressive, ad hoc management approach emphasizing
large scale firings and radical reduction of agency functions. DOGE predecessor functions in the General Services Administration appear to have been reduced or
eliminated – apparently at DOGE direction, and a number of the technical experts in the
US Digital Service have resigned.
• We have not seen official announcements of the Agency Heads’ appointment of DOGE
teams, any indication that those teams are active or any clear confirmation of the Agency
Heads’ primacy or the purely advisory and consultative role of the DOGE.
Whether these departures are a reaction to embedded opposition within the agencies or some
other factor, they appear to have resulted in lack of transparency, public misunderstandings and
mistrust and extensive litigation that may not have been necessary if the mandates had been
scrupulously followed.
What all of this suggests is that, if the Trump mandates are properly interpreted and adhered to,
the gap between your two parties’ positions may not be unbridgeable. We urge that you and
your committee members work together in a continuing effort to identify shared objectives and
approaches to achieving them.
The current widespread misunderstandings regarding the proper DOGE functions are creating
unnecessary controversy and impeding the shared goal of improving government efficiency and
productivity through the effective use of technology and digital systems. We hope that you and
your Committee can help to resolve these misunderstandings and put this well-intended effort
back on track towards a more efficient and productive government.
For your record, we are attaching recent statements of position on these issues which we hope
will be helpful in charting a path forward. We are always available to respond to questions or
provide additional information.
Blueprint 2025
2550 M Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
T: 202 775 2025
gordon@sinfpi.org
https://www.sinfpi.org/
Recent Comments